Once again gently tapping the "there's no such thing as thoughtcrime" sign...

Moving on!



There's one user I remember. I don't think she's exactly the one OP is addressing, but she told some stories that she claimed were true, but sounded pretty tall to me. Less explicit "ruining" that OP is describing, and more "choosing to give up everything to be immobile feedees".

But if OP and others are after real anecdotes, I don't think I know the user/posts being referenced.

I’m going to offer a *slightly* more nuanced answer than others have offered, based on conversations with such professionals.

Hopefully, you shouldn’t be able to find someone who is willing to both A: be your therapist and B: engage in a kink with you. That’s akin to having sex with a client. Super unethical, as others have mentioned.

However, there are professionals (including these kinds of mental health professionals) who are also kinky people that enjoy using some of the skills they learned for their profession in a kink context. But as a kinky play partner—NOT as a professional.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. The pro just needs to be thoughtful about how they approach play to ensure they keep appropriate boundaries. This challenge isn’t unique to kink, of course; it’s true of any relationship. Therapists shouldn’t be offering therapy to friends or family, for example.

Just to be clear, that’s 3500 *excess* calories to gain one pound. If you eat 3500 *excess every day*, that’s 1 lb/day (assuming your body stores it as fat, instead of shunting it to something else, like heat or fidgeting).

Assuming a “typical” 2000 cal/day requirement (which is a dubious number, but the math is easy), if you eat 3500 calories a day (not excess, just 3500 total), that’s 1500 excess per day. So that’s 1lb every 2.333 days, or just over 12lbs per month (again, assuming perfect absorption)

However, you should probably use a calorie calculator to figure out your daily requirement. Be sure to use one that accounts for body fat percent, because maintaining fat mass consumes waaaaaay fewer calories than maintaining muscle mass.

This sounds great! I think it’s probably even worth mentioning the SEO concern. Like I don’t *love* it, but I understand it, and I think today’s audience will also get it. (…unless the first rule of SEO is don’t talk about SEO? Again, idk how it works)



In principle yes! Thank you for asking. I’m not sure if I could give more information in the article than I’ve already given here; it’s not like I remember who drove the feederism—>feedism change, or how it occurred. I have a vague memory of seeing a couple posts on tumblr circulate like… a decade ago, and it seemed like the change was very rapid from there.

Hmm, interesting. I’m not too familiar with how SEO works.

Is there any way to account for both? Title it something like “What are feedism and feederism?”

As the title stands, especially paired with the phrasing of the first sentence “sometimes known as feedism” implies that “feederism” is still widely accepted.

It's a good overview! Might be cool to have some quotes from community members in there, or maybe in a companion article.
If this is article is supposed to be an introduction to feedism, I have some concern over some word choice and definitions.

1) feedism vs. feederism
For example, the move in the community to refer to the kink as "feedism" instead of "feederism" was a wise one, as it's the more inclusive term. I don't claim to be on every corner of the internet, but I see members of the community use "feedism" far more commonly these days. I also think "feederism" reflects the sensationalist narratives run by outside media. It kind of suggests that the kink is entirely driven by feeder's desires, ya know? Rather than feedees being full, eager, autonomous participants.

So I prefer to see the kink referred ot as "feedism" throughout the body of the article, possibly mentioning "feederism" in the gloassary at the end. Something like "Feederism: you may have seen this kink referred to as feedism, which used to be the common term."

2) Glossary terms
While seeking a perfect definition is futile, the terms as they're defined here seem narrower than--and in some cases, not accurate to--the ways I've seen community members actually use them over the years.

2.1 feedee--there are plenty of people who identify as feedees (including me) without feeders. So I think the bit about "with the assistance of a feeder" should be removed.

2.2 feeder--as with feedee, there are plenty of people who identify as feeders but for whom directly, literally feeding their partner is not of much importance. So maybe something like "A feeder is someone who enjoys helping their partner put on weight, wether through feeding them directly, cooking for them, encouraging them, etc.

2.3 feeder/feedee vs. gainer/encourager--I've seen lots of people attempt to differentiate these over the years, with little consistency. This seems like one of those instances where people try to come up with different definitions simply because there are two different words, when in reality, they're used to mean pretty much the same thing. [Much like colloquial uses of "kink", "fetish", and "paraphilia"]

IME, the biggest determinant of which set of labels someone uses is not which behaviors/activities they take part in, rather, sexual orientation and which community somone became involved with. Gay men (and some bi men) use gainer/encourager, and the rest of use use feedee/feeder. There's some crossover between who uses which terms of course (IMO, moreso in the last few years than in the last ~10+ before that), but that's the most consistent difference.

If anyone is skeptical that this is the real difference, I recommend using search engines to look for "feedee porn" and "gainer porn"

What does this mean for the glossary? Maybe something like:

"Gainer: a term similar to feedee, but more commonly used by gay men"
"Encourager: a term similar to feeder, but more commonly used by gay men"

Yup! That's the one

Not an expert, but the search term you’re looking for is “adipose tissue hyperplasia”—that means increasing the number of fat cells. Sometimes helps to include specifiers like “white adipose tissue hyperplasia” or “subcutaneous adipose tissue hyperplasia”. (“Hypertrophy” means filling up those fat cells)

There was a neat paper from… close to a decade ago? 2015 maybe? That used a mouse model to first induce obesity with a high fat diet, and then cure it by using a hormone cocktail to induce hyperplasia.

The mice gained weight after the cocktail, but the size of the cells was smaller; they reversed the hypertrophy by inducing hyperplasia, giving the mice more room to store fat (ie, there was somewhere for the blood sugar to go. No more systemic insulin resistance or diabetes).

These results seem consistent with some conclusions about “metabolically healthy obese” (MHO) humans, who typically have smaller and more plentiful fat cells.

A fairly comprehensive paper I read in… 2018? Addressed a lot of evidence that the systemic insulin resistance of T2DM is a result of fat cells becoming too hypertrophic and bursting, signaling to others to become insulin resistant.

I really do have to collect these papers in a sensible place at some point lol.

I’ve done what Razz did—take it a bit at a time. That said, be aware that your body’s own homeostasis might work in different increments. Mine seems to work in increments of roughly 15lbs (not every time, and not exactly, but roughly).

Regarding finding a partner, keep in mind that if you find a partner who is only attracted to thin people, you’ll always be facing pressure to stay thin (which we know from research is an unrealistic expectation). That’s not fun in the long term, IME.

Ooh. Very interesting. I will likely be increasing fiber consumption for unrelated reasons, but if I have any anecdotes to share, I will.

I’m not gaining now, but the fact that it decreased VFA but not BMI suggests that maybe it facilitates redistribution/remodeling? That would be neat.